I’m seriously looking for a factual historical answer to this question. I don’t want a Great Debate on the validity of one side or the other.
To wit: ***When exactly did “offensiveness” become anathema in public dialog? ***
That is, when was the first historical example of someone who took legal or political action based on being offended by someone, as opposed to being harmed by someone? It seems to me this is a fairly recent (1990’s?) trend, but to be honest political and legal history is not an area I have detailed knowledge of.
So – does anyone know when “the right not to be offended” began to be promulgated?
I’m not certain what you mean. Could you be more specific? Generally, merely being offended isn’t actionable. You ordinarily need much more than that, like intentional infliction of severe emotional distress that goes beyond just being offended, vexed, or worried. I think you might be talking about something with more specific elements.
Incidentally, did you get your name from the villain of Rock and Rule? I love that song.
Agreeing with pravnik, emotional distress or mental anguish, to be compensable, must be “severe”. Some states require or have required a “physical manifestation” of such distress. Although, I believe the trend is to abolish the “physical manifestation” standard.
I haven’t heard of a case where simply being offended gave rise to damages. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Only a guess, but perhaps the OP is referring to cases in which there is a call for somebody to be fired or reprimanded for making a comment that somebody perceives as offensive – like a racially charged issue or the like.
An example might include the fairly recent incident of a teacher being reprimanded and sent to sensitivity training classes for using the word “niggardly” – which has a definition totally unrelated to racial issues, but which some student (or student’s mother?) took offense at. Another example might be the current brou-ha-ha over Trent Lott.
True, but libel and slander don’t depend on offense to the plaintiff. Libel and slander are defamatory statements conveyed to third parties that cause injury to the plaintiff’s reputation.
Perhaps the flying Confederate Naval Jack over the SC Statehouse and the NAACP’s economic boycott of the state is an example of what you are asking about?
Not sure about the exact date, but battery has long been held to be actionable merely for being an offensive touching, without regard to physical harm.
I think he means more like a sexual harrassment claim for some guy making a crude joke at work with a couple of buddies and a female coworker overhearing and taking offense.
Disclaimer: I’ve never heard of a situation like this, but to me, it seems plausible.
Crude jokes and such that can make up a sexual harassment claim come up under the aegis of “creating a hostile workplace”. In other words, the guys who keep making those jokes are making it very difficult, if not impossible, for someone to perform their job.
It could be argued that this is the same as making it actionable if a coworker comes up to you and stands by you all day farting or knocking pencils out of your hand.
Let me help clarify my OP, I guess I shouldn’t have used the word “actionable” since it implies a particular legal construct.
Examples that have been given that match what I am looking for include:
In recent years, there has in my mind been certain trend in the response to “being offended”. It used to be that when one was offended, one either turned the other cheek, or offended the other person back. Recently, it seems that a widespread practice is to respond to offense by trying to inflict punishment on the offending party. E.g. with the use of the word “niggardly” – offense was perceived where none was intended, and the offending party was nonetheless punished
I’m particular interested in cases where no offense is intended but nevertheless offense is perceived. This is particularly appropriate this time of year. Many people are taking offense to genuinely proferred “good wishes” merely because they invoke a diety or religion not recognized by the other party. Some of these cases have resulted in restrictive workplace and government policies, even though no harm can be shown by anyone, and the intent is non-offensive.
For example – presumably many workplaces forbid “Christmas wishes” becuase they invoke Christ, which invocation might offend someone. This implies that a legal action might arise against the company if they didn’t promulgate such a policy. But it’s not like a sexual harrassment case, where the harm of a hostile workplace can be shown. This is a case where people do not mean offense, in fact typically they are wishing good health, prosperity, and happiness! Yet merely by taking offense where none was intended, legal action is seen as a possible outcome.
Does that clear things up a bit? I fear that I’m rambling.
Sorry, the derivation isn’t as kewl as all that. :o
My user name used to be “m”. Seems this caused some database issues with the SMDB :D, and so I was asked to lengthen it to a minimum of three characters. “mok” is the handle I used in days of yore as my video-game high score initials. It’s just a mispronunciation of my real name, sort of. Now back to the show.
